Parsons & Anor v George & Anor

Parsons & Anor v George & Anor

The court has jurisdiction under CPR 19.5(1)(c) to allow substitution of a party after the expiry of the limitation period in section 29(3) of the LTA, as the LTA does not prohibit such a change. The claimants made a genuine mistake in naming the wrong party, intending to sue the competent landlord, and the conditions of CPR 19.5(3)(a) are satisfied. It would be manifestly unjust not to allow the amendment, and no prejudice would be caused to the substituted party.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Parsons and Another; Respondent/defendant: George and Another
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Romford County Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation Periods, Substitution of Parties, Mistake in Party Identity
Landlord and Tenant Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Limitation Periods Substitution of Parties Mistake in Party Identity

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Parsons and Another

Appellant/claimant

George and Another

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Romford County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has power to permit a tenant applying for a new tenancy under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 to amend the claim form to add or substitute a party after the expiry of the period specified by section 29(3) of the LTA.
  2. 2 Whether CPR 19.2, 19.5 or 3.10 provide jurisdiction to allow such amendment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court has jurisdiction under CPR 19.5(1)(c) to allow substitution of a party after the expiry of the limitation period in section 29(3) of the LTA, as the LTA does not prohibit such a change. The claimants made a genuine mistake in naming the wrong party, intending to sue the competent landlord, and the conditions of CPR 19.5(3)(a) are satisfied. It would be manifestly unjust not to allow the amendment, and no prejudice would be caused to the substituted party.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Substitution of Mrs Pamela Audrey Purcell as defendant for the original defendants
  • Agreed minute or order to be lodged